Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

PRO POACHING - If you run a law firm and have been under the impression that the legal industry talent war is just about attorneys, you might want to check on your other staff members before the resignation letters start rolling in. As Law.com's Andrew Maloney reports, everyone from secretaries and litigation support professionals to financial analysts and strategic C-suite leaders are being courted by competitors. In fact, a recent survey of law firm business professionals pegged "staff poaching" as the second-highest threat to firm profitability, amid talent-related risks such as lawyer recruiting and associate salary increases. Staff-related concerns are partly due to dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic that have given employees everywhere new leverage over employers. But, particularly in Big Law, it also relates to a wave of new roles focused on pricing and profitability, combined with the fact that firm leaders are often reluctant to bring in unproven talent. "[Firms] aren't necessarily interested in holding open tryouts," said Bill Josten, manager of enterprise content for Thomson Reuters, which published its 2021 Law Firm Business Leaders Report last week. "They want to acquire proven talent. If you watch those types of roles, and individuals in those roles, there's a high degree of mobility—you see a lot of mobility in those types of roles that are in those expanding demand areas for law firms."

SUGAR AND SPICE - The DOJ's push to block a merger of sugar behemoths in Delaware federal court is a must-watch antitrust case, if you're into that sort of thing. Carl Hittinger, a partner who heads the antitrust practice group at Baker & Hostetler in Philadelphia, told Law.com's Michael A. Mora that the government's lawsuit to stop the United States Sugar Corp. from acquiring its rival, Imperial Sugar Co., is going to turn on the issue of market definition. "This case may be one of the major cases going forward on how you define relevant market even further," said Hittinger, who does not represent either party in the litigation. "I don't see a judge looking at this and saying, 'I know that they're sugar substitutes, so I don't think this complaint is valid.'" The DOJ alleged that the merger of U.S. Sugar and Imperial Sugar announced in March, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, thereby leaving most refined sugar sales in the Southeastern part of the country in the surviving entity from the merger, according to the lawsuit. As a result, the DOJ has predicted the merger would lead to higher prices for American businesses and consumers to buy refined sugar for use in foods and beverages. The government has also pushed back against the argument that customers, including manufacturers, could easily switch to other types of sweeteners if refined sugar prices rose too high.

FAULTY FORMULA? - Rite Aid was hit with a consumer class action Thursday in New York Southern District Court over its Tugaboos brand "Toddler Beginnings" formula. The suit, filed by Sheehan & Associates, alleges that the product's labeling falsely suggests that the transition formula is nutritionally adequate for children over a year and that it does not contain non-genetically modified ingredients. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 7:21-cv-10079, Martelli v. Rite Aid Corporation. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.  

EDITOR'S PICKS

• Day Pitney Bows Out of Controversial Sandy Hook Case  By Dylan Jackson

• Amid Backlash, Yale Law Dean Apologizes for School's Handling of 'Trap House' Email Controversy   By Christine Charnosky
• Ohio Justices Divided Over Sanctions for Lawyer Who Said 'Some Not-So-Nice Things About This Court'  By Allison Dunn
• Critical Mass by Law.com's Ellen Bardash: Pharmacies Found Liable In First Opioid Crisis Verdict, Monsanto Blocked On One Roundup Appeal While Arguing Another.     By Ellen Bardash
• Appeals Court: Policyholder Whose Employer Erroneously Withdrew Higher Premiums Not Entitled to Increased Life Insurance Coverage  By Allison Dunn

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING

CREDIT AND BLAME - Major Allen & Overy client Credit Suisse has signaled that it plans to limit the work it provides to the firm in the future after the bank raised concerns about potential client conflicts and data breaches within the firm. As Law.com International's Rose Walker recently reported, two people with knowledge of the situation said that the bank has raised concerns over potential data breaches within the firm. The people added that the bank's GC Romeo Cerutti has also been particularly unhappy over A&O's adviser role to failed financier Greensill Capital. A&O advised the financier on its funding for an attempted IPO, and its restructuring process. Credit Suisse is currently facing investor claims attempting to win back losses from investments linked to Greensill. But as Walker and Law.com International's Varsha Patel also reported last week, several observers of the falling out between A&O and Credit Suisse have sided with the law firm, calling Credit Suisse's move "harsh," "unfair" and "hypocritical," particularly since the bank hardly has a spotless reputation itself. "Credit Suisse has had a shocking few years and it's helpful if they can point elsewhere," said one GC at an industrials group. "It all feels very hypocritical, and [taking issue] over Greensill seems very much like the pot calling the kettle black."

WHAT YOU SAID

"While today is not one for celebration, it is one for reflection. This case, by all accounts, should have been opened and closed … the violent stalking and lynching of Ahmaud Arbery was documented on video for the world to witness. But yet, because of the deep cracks, flaws and biases in our systems, we were left to wonder if we would ever see justice."